IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10779 of 2012 Between:
B. Narotham Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 78 years, R/o. 2-6-1008, KLN Reddy Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal.
.. Petitioner AND Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10779 of 2012 ORDER:
The petitioner is one of the persons who had actively participated in the liberation movement against the then Nizam Government. During relevant period, the petitioner was a student. There was strong peoples’ movement for merger of Nizam State with Indian Union. A general call was given for quitting colleges and schools by the President of Hyderabad Pradesh Congress Committee by name Late Sri Swami Ramananda Theertha, which was started by all students Union. In response to the said call, the students of Collegiate High School, Hanmakonda, and the student of other Educational Institutions at Warangal had boycotted the colleges and schools on 2nd of Aban 1356 Fasli and took out a massive procession of nearly 1000 students. National Tri-colour flag was hoisted in the premises of the student Union building and the whole area was decorated with tri-colour flags. Thereafter, a public meeting was held. There was also slogan shouting against the Nizam Government. The Nizam Government tried to break the meeting, arrested about 50 to 60 students, crime was registered under Sections 33, 37 and 58 of Criminal law of the then Nizam State. Crime was registered in Register No.1 at Crime Serial No.941. However, only few persons were arrested as symbolic of arrest and their names are only reflected as accused and others’ names are shown as etcetra. To continue further with the struggle under the leadership of the then District Incharge of the movement Late Sri Rama Chary, the students have gone underground and toured various villages like Narsampet, Parkal and Mulug Taluks of Warangal District organizing the strikes of students at various places and educated the ryots not to pay land revenue and other taxes to the Government and not to co-operate with the Government. These activities were carried on till the police action took place in September, 1948. The petitioner is one of the persons, who participated in the Hyderabad Merger Movement during the freedom struggle and took active part in all activities under the guidance of Sri K. Sudarshan Reddy.
2. In recognition of the struggle and suffering made by the persons who have actively participated in such freedom movement, the Central Government launched “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” for providing monthly pension to the freedom fighters.
3. Claiming that the petitioner qualifies to be a freedom fighter and eligible to claim pension under the “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980”, the petitioner applied for grant of pension. The State Government recommended the claims of the petitioner on due verification of credentials. The said recommendation of the petitioner was initially rejected by the Central Government by order, dated 08.07.2003, on the ground that the Camp in which the petitioner stated to have participated was not one of the camps notified and, therefore, not eligible to claim benefits of the said Scheme. Similar such decisions were communicated to all claimants. Freedom fighters in Hyderabad Special Screening Committee recommended candidates, formed into a society and instituted W.P.No.7411 of 2004. This Court passed orders on 31.10.2006 with the following directions:
“Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1) Within a period of six months, the Government of India shall, in coordination with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, scrutinise the cases of all the persons in whose favour the Special Screening Committee have made recommendations for being treated as freedom fighters for the purpose of the 1980 Scheme and decide the same by recording reasons.
2) The decision taken by the competent authority shall be communicated to each of the candidates in whose favour recommendations had been made by the Special Screening Committees constituted by the Government of India.
3) Such of the claimants who are found eligible and entitled to be treated as freedom fighters be granted pension in accordance with the extant policy.”
4. Thereafter, the State Government verified the credentials of the petitioner and submitted its report on 15.07.2008. Along with the report, the State Government enclosed all the relevant documents required by the central Government in support of the recommendations made by the State Government including the statement of Sri Katanguri Vijayander Reddy, Camp- in-charge certificate issued by Sri Kasarla Sudharshan Reddy and Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri Charaku Ananda Rao. Contending that there was no further response to the recommendations made by the State Government and inaction on the part of the central Government is illegal, the petitioner instituted W.P.No.30890 of 2010. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the central Government passed orders on 28.02.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. Having regard to the orders passed by the central Government, W.P.No.30890 of 2010 was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the orders of the central Government, dated 28.02.2012. Challenging the said orders, this writ petition is instituted.
5. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. S. Nanda, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the State of Telangana for the 3rd respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was one of the active participants in the Freedom Movement against the then Nizam Government as a student leader and various certificates were issued by the persons who have participated in the movement and also the Camp Incharge testified the active participation of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner qualifies for grant of pension as per the “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” launched by the Government of India in the year 1980 and the rejection of the request of the petitioner is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the reason assigned for rejection is contrary to record and the rejection was on the ground that vague and unverifiable statements are made in the Personal Knowledge Certificate and Government Freedom Fighters Certificates and, therefore, the recommendations of the State Government cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Camp Incharge Certificate, Personal Knowledge Certificate and other certificates clearly support the participation of the petitioner, relevant period during which time the petitioner was active participant and the motivation for such participation. Therefore, all the ingredients required by the pension scheme and subsequent orders issued from time to time are satisfied by the petitioner.
7. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 runs into several pages. The relevant para in the counter affidavit is only para 20. Para 20 of the counter affidavit reiterates the same view as expressed in the order impugned in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel supports the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the particulars furnished along with the recommendations of the State Government cannot be verified and, therefore, the petitioner’s entitlement for sanction of pension is not valid.
8. As seen from the order impugned in the writ petition, the reason assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that the Personal Knowledge Certificate and Co-Freedom Fighter Certificates are vague, unverifiable and does not give specific details of CASES and AUTHORITY, which necessitated the petitioner going underground in a border camp.
9. The affidavit given by Sri Kasarla Sudharshan Reddy, who was Incharge of the Student Camp, Hanamakonda, is enclosed at Page 53 of the writ material paper book. The affidavit deals of what transpired during the period from 06.09.1947 to 17.09.1948. It gives reasons for participation in the Freedom Movement by the students, their quitting the colleges and schools, going underground, participating in various Villages in Warangal District motivating the students in other places in Warangal District to boycott the classes and participate in the movement and their decision to go underground. Admittedly, crime was registered against the incidents that took place on 06.09.1947 in Hanamakonda and Warangal Towns where the students have hoisted Tri-colour flag in the premises of the Student Union Building and also around the place, holding of public meeting and shouting of slogans against the then Government. The Personal Knowledge Certificate also gives details of participation of the petitioner. The Personal Knowledge Certificate certifies that the petitioner was a bona fide freedom fighter. He also says that he was the person against whom an order of detention was issued, but could not be served. The report of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal, dated 19.06.1973, gives details of Sri Charaku Ananda Rao’s imprisonment, who gave the Personal Knowledge Certificate. Thus, Sri Charaku Ananda Rao qualifies to be eligible to issue such certificate as per the Scheme and the Government of India’s instructions issued from time to time. Thus, all the ingredients required for the purpose of positively evaluating the eligibility of the candidate to grant pension under the “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” was fulfilled by the petitioner.
10. As seen from the material paper book filed along with the writ petition, the case has a checkered history and for one reason or the other, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Initially, it was rejected on the ground that Hanamakonda Camp was not one of the camps identified, whereas the orders of the Government of India, dated 28.01.2005 where the list of 18 additional border camps recognized for grant of “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” is enclosed, Hanamakonda Town is shown at Serial No.12. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible, but since no formal order of recognition was granted when his application was processed, it was rejected. Though this Court passed detailed orders fixing time limit in the judgment, dated 30.01.2006 in W.P.No.7411 of 2004, the Central Government took its own time to pass orders i.e., for more than six years and that too at the stage when W.P.No.30890 of 2010 was taken up for consideration. No reasons are assigned as to why the central Government took so much time for taking a decision even though the recommendations of the State Government was made on 15.07.2008.
11. Even now the rejection is on the ground that the statements made in the Personal Knowledge Certificate and the Co-Freedom Fighters Certificate are vague, which stand of the central Government is contrary to record. It is, thus, seen that there is absolutely no application of mind by the competent authority while considering the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is made to wait to receive the benefits which he is legally entitled to in accordance with the “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” for so long only because competent authority in the central Government has not applied its mind and not verified the records before taking a decision. The petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court again and again and compelled to litigate before this Court for long time.
12. The very idea of notifying such a policy is to provide some kind of succour to those persons, who have sacrificed their life for the purpose of securing freedom to this country. As certified by the Camp Incharge, the petitioner had to lose one year of his education on account of his participation in the movement which might have had cascading effect on the entire career of the person. Thus, it is wholly illegal on the part of the central Government to mechanically deal with the matter when the claim is genuine and the document on record support the claim of the individual. Already sufficient time is consumed by the central Government in considering the genuine claim of the petitioner. As noted above, the earlier rejection on 08.07.2003 was on the ground that the Camp of the movement where the petitioner stated to have participated was not recognized and now it is rejected on the ground that the details furnished are not clear, vague and unsubstantiated. On both occasions, the rejection was not on valid grounds and shows non-application of mind defeating the very object of the Act.
13. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already crossed 80 years and the rejection on two occasions was wholly illegal and that the documents on record support the claim of petitioner for grant of pension under the Scheme, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and consequently, the central Government (first respondent) is directed to forthwith pass orders granting pension to the petitioner under the “Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980”, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 17th December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10779 of 2012 Date: 17th December, 2014 KL